Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Isn't it just a classic example of a party who are so out of touch with people in Australia sending their children to independent schools, public schools and Catholic schools. How out of touch they are with the schools that are doing it tough. This is going to be a funding issue, yes, but it is a funding priority issue, and that is what those opposite have failed to acknowledge. Throughout this debate, they have just said, 'Our government cannot afford it. This is too expensive and we cannot afford it.' That is just rubbish. The government have decided not to prioritise education and put it at the top of the list.

Let's talk about some of the things they have prioritised since they have come to government. Let's talk about the $45,000 that has been spent by the foreign affairs minister's office to replace IT equipment lost. Meanwhile, schools in my electorate struggle to scrape together $5,000 to buy the IT equipment they need so that their students can get a decent education. We are talking about primary schools like Maldon and Dunolly—our small public primary schools that would have benefited from the Gonski reforms if they were implemented in full, not just for the first year after the election but as per your promise on election day: 'We will match Labor dollar for dollar.' That does not mean for the first year or for the second year; it means every single year. In electorates like my electorate of Bendigo, that is an extra $200 million for our schools—our independent schools, our Catholic schools and our public schools. As Labor said, your postcode should not determine your educational outcome. Labor said every single school student, regardless of their parents' income and regardless of their postcode, should get the resources they need to ensure they get a great education. The government have decided not to prioritise this. The government are saying they cannot afford it, but they can. They have just decided not to prioritise education funding and they have dropped it down the list.

Another standout example—and this one is a cracker: the government will prioritise buying books for themselves. They will prioritise building their own libraries within their own offices. Let's just take the Attorney-General as an example. He spent $15,000 to custom build his own shelving in this place to house his $13,000 taxpayer-funded collection of books. I cannot find a school in my electorate—and I have called them—that has $13,000 allocated this year to be able to buy library books. They do not. They are scraping together every dollar they can to stretch their funding for teacher aids and for sporting resources. They say, 'If only I had a cheque for $13,000 to spend on my library books or $15,000 to maintain my library space.' The government will prioritise their own personal libraries but not the libraries of our primary schools, particularly those in regional areas and in low-SES areas.

The Gonski funding was critical because it was needs based. It ensured our schools in towns in low-SES areas, where parents can least afford the extra costs, got the dollars that they needed. I am not sure if many members went to a primary or secondary public school and asked them what the cost of books was this year. Schools are doing it tough. Bendigo Senior Secondary College has asked parents to pay $1,000 for its book list. That is before the voluntary contributions. One thousand dollars—imagine that with a 15 per cent GST on top of it. This is a government that just does not care about our public school system or our Catholic school system. This is a government that puts its own priorities first and not the priorities of our schools.

The Gonski funding also would have helped students with a disability—loadings to make sure that every student with a learning difficulty or a disability got the funding that they needed. This government seems to think that the current system is fair. It is not. Too many students who are on the autism spectrum miss out on critical funding to help them get the education they need. This government said one thing before the election to get elected; now, after the election, it is doing another. If it was serious about prioritising education funding, it would put the dollars back and put education on the top of the list. It would not be ranting that it cannot afford it. It cannot afford not to do it.

See this speech in context